July 25, 2005

From Dusk 'Til Dawn

We are still on the Plame leak case - the WaPo makes a bigger deal than necessary of then-White House Counsel Gonzalez's decision to notify Chief of Staff Andrew Card immediately about a criminal probe into the affair by the Justice Dept., and then waiting twelve hours to notify the rest of the staff:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said yesterday that he spoke with
White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. immediately after
learning that the Justice Department had launched a criminal
investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity. But
Gonzales, who was White House counsel at the time, waited 12 hours
before officially notifying the rest of the staff of the inquiry.

...

In the New York Times yesterday, columnist Frank Rich cited
news reports from 2003 that when Gonzales was notified about the
investigation on the evening of Monday, Sept. 29, 2003, he waited 12
hours before telling the White House staff about the inquiry. Official
notification to staff is meant to quickly alert anyone who may have
pertinent records to make sure they are preserved and safeguarded.

Asked
on CBS's "Face the Nation" about the column, Gonzales said the Justice
Department had informed his office around 8 p.m. and that White House
lawyers said he could wait until the next morning before notifying the
staff. He did not say why he called Card.

"I specifically had our lawyers go back to the Department of
Justice lawyers and ask them, 'Do you want us to notify the staff now,
immediately, or would it be okay to notify the staff early in the
morning?' And we were advised, go ahead and notify the staff early in
the morning, that would be okay." He said most of the staff had left by
the time the Justice Department called and that "no one knew about the
investigation."

But he acknowledged telling one
person: "the chief of staff. And immediately the next morning, I told
the president. And shortly thereafter, there was notification sent out
to all the members of the White House staff," Gonzales said.

I understand Frank Rich's desire to heighten the sense of drama and cover-up. However, a couple of points are worth noting.

First, this referral was delivered from Justice to Gonzalez on the evening of Monday, Sept. 29. However, NBC News reported late on Friday, Sept 26 that a criminal referral was imminent, and the Sunday, Sept 28 WaPo front-paged the story that broke this case open.

Inquiring minds have wondered why the Justice Dept waited until the evening of the 28th to tell Gonzalez the obvious, but any criminal conspirators had plenty of warning.

And my second point is really a question - is forewarned forearmed in this case? Just what might an evil conspirator do with a twelve hour head start (which was really a head start going back to July?) E-mails, for example, are protected by a Federal records law; I imagine that other White House documents are similarly protected. I suppose personal diaries could be scrubbed, but, post-Whitewater, every staffer in Washington knows that might be subpoenaed.

It would have been helpful for the WaPo reporter to flesh out the implications of a twelve hour gap; if we can believe Gonzalez, the Justice Dept. was unworried, and I am not sure why they should have been.

Comments

TM - Russert's performance on MTP yesterday was truly weird in all sorts of ways, and that exchange you cite hardly clears things up, it seems to me; nor does the Isikoff article. Don't you think Isikoff would have specified if he were working off anything more recent than the original NBC statement itself, which he just seems to completely mischaracterize? Also, NBC refused to elaborate on the statement to the NYT for the July 16 Liptak article.

As for MTP, Russert's "I didn't know" hardly clarifies matters, especially since he himself had just raised the point that even if reporters did give info to government officials, they had to get it from somewhere else. Did Russert not know anything about Plame before he spoke with Libby? Then why not be categorically clear, the way Cooper was just the week before? Or did Russert not know before his original source told him that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA (just not as an operative), info he relayed to Libby -- which would be fully consistent with the original August 2004 NBC statement regarding his testimony? Or was Russert saying he didn't know Plame's name and that she was an operative?

Presumably Fitzgerald knows the answer, and it's unimaginable that Russert got away with telling investigators he didn't know her name or her operative role at the CIA without being asked whether he knew anything else about Plame and told Libby. I also still think it is most likely that Russert didn't know anything about Plame and didn't tell Libby. But why can't he just come out and say it?

On the other hand, wouldn't it be hilarious if Russert turned out to be Cliff May's cocktail party interlocutor? Would that give pause to the right-wing's conspiratorial view of the MSM, even for a moment? (Russert fits the profile of May's source, doesn't he?)

With all due respect, I find it quite absurd that you would accuse an anti-Iraq-war person of being pro-wanting-another-Vietnam.

My view from day one was that attacking Iraq would be the conception of a hundred years war, something akin to the Israeli – Palestinian conflict. I thought that any idiot would have been able to see that. I was wrong.

I feel using cigars as a marital (or extra-marital) aid was unseemly. I also feel that murdering thousands of Muslims, using young Americans to perpetrate the murders under a false pretense, using the profits from the murders to line the murderers’ pockets, know that the murders will place the world in greater danger and destroying anyone's career who disagrees with said murderous activity is an impeachable offense. Obviously, you think it’s akin to a dirty joke.

My view from day one was that attacking Iraq would be the conception of a hundred years war, something akin to the Israeli – Palestinian conflict. I thought that any idiot would have been able to see that. I was wrong.

You'd think any idiot would know that Israel was founded 57 years ago, and that there was no "Palestininan national identity" until, at most, 41 years ago.

Joe Jackson: Where are these profits you speak of? This war has cost billions of dollars. Are these profits for the evil corporations? BLOOD FOR OIIIILLL??

Also, I said I would stop, but I can't resist: are you suggesting that had we not attacked Iraq, everything would be hunky-dory between the United States and the Islamofacists? Would this 100-Years War NOT occurred if we had not attacked Iraq, or Afghanistan? What about Bosnia? We killed thousands there, Joe, but it was a "good war" under a Democratic administration so I'm sure you either averted your eyes or rationalized it away.

Anyway, what's your plan, Joe? What should we have done? What should we do now? I'm curious.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The "well duh" attitude implies that the lies and the leaks from this administration were as natural as breathing. So the administration let its guard down and got sloppy -- much akin to the way a criminal gets sloppy when he/she hasn't been caught in a long while. They got lazy and on a hurried Friday afternoon before a vacation, someone exposed a CIA operative. The fact that the public might get ticked at this is one thing. The fact that you got the CIA ticked at you is another. Both have had it with this administration.

Don't you understand, Seven? Military action is never legitimate in pursuit of one's national interests. It is only legitimate in pursuit of purely selfless, inconsequential goals. Because Republicans are interested in the national interest, by definition, any military action they initiate is illegitimate.

"Military action is never legitimate in pursuit of one's national interests. "

There you go jumping to conclusions again Armin. I'm all for military action where appropriate. For example, if we could put everyone of your ilk on a island, I would be 100% for attacking it with everything we got. (Nuclear weapons excluded -- bad for the air;)

Joe, Joe, Joe. Your single source hurried Friday afternoon leak mistake is a fantasy. Once Joe talked in May and June, and wrote in July, his wife's status became the object of many curiosities. It is absurd to believe in single point disclosure.
========================

Joe: Are you suggesting that the CIA is trying to influence domestic elections because it is upset with the president? That's pretty much the implication of what you said. And that, my Cargo Cult friend, is a REAL SCANDAL because the CIA's realm is 100 percent foreign. You have implie a coup. Somebody get the New York Times on the phone!

Luckily for us conservatives (who must be fanatical religious zealots, apparently), guys like Joe don't understand much about politics. So they are harmless but fun.

Dear Sept a un coup: They are fun but not harmless. They are seducing the loyal opposition into sedition. God help us all. Or was that a little too religious?
==============================================

Thank you for asking. First, consider this analogy: If you had ten thousand dollars and you wanted to protect your house from burglars and intruders, what would you do? Would you invest to protect your house and property, or would expend the money to go out and catch the burglars?

Second, realize this: “Fighting the war on terrorism” is identical to “Fighting the war on crime”. Terrorism is just a genre of crime. There will always be “bad guys” so we will never fully win the war on crime and we will never fully win the war on terrorism. To say that we can implies an absurdity: We think we can rid the world of every criminal.

So the right thing to do would be to start with those two basic axioms. If you want to know more, I’ll tell you. If you just give the typical rightwing knee-jerk black is white rejection, then its not worth my time.

I revisited Tom's list of reporters (I Smell a Press Cover-up and I'm Steaming)and I would suspect, given that most of them work for publicly held corporations -think potential class action lawsuit - they are now so lawyered-up as to be rendered practically tongue-tied. Heh.

I find it amusing that "Gotcha Journalism" has now found itself in the position dealing with the consequences of "Gotcha Back."

How can there be a knee jerk to that great big pile of blah? Do you realize you stated exactly nothing in that post? You asked two questions, JJ, the answers to which may vary.
==================================================

1. We are doing what you suggest on the homefront, Joe. It's called the PATRIOT ACT (a favorite of yours, I'm sure) and the Department of Homeland Security).

2. "Second, realize this: [Fighting the war on NAZISM] is identical to 'Fighting the war on crime.' NAZISM is just a genre of crime. There will always be 'bad guys' so we will never fully win the war on 'crime' and we will never fully win the war on NAZISM. To say that we can implies an absurdity: We think we can rid the world of every criminal." MORE SERIOUSLY: The Carter, Reagan Bush I, and Clinton administrations tried treating terrorsism as crime. To view the results, you can visit 4000 or so American civilian graves.

3. Are you messing with me? Are you somebody trying to play the prototypical, know-nothing, goofball liberal just to get a response?

Apparently your brain has not evolved to the point which defines intelligence – the ability to understand one concept by understanding another. This is the essence of an analogy.

The obvious point (which I thought would not have to be explained even to the most brain-challenged of posters) of the first analogy is that, with limited resources (“money” in case you don’t know what “resources” are), we should have invested first and IMMEDIATELY in the protection and detection at our ports of entry. This is not rocket science, its just common sense. Instead, we spent $300 billion on a war. That’s just plain stupid.

The best part about today is that Shoeless Joe Jackson has paid a visit and spent time just spouting the most ludicrous, silly bile -- moveon.org talking points, really, but presented in a crude, junior-high fashion. Then, when people disagree with his false, or absurd, of just poorly-thought-out assertions, what does he do? Of course: he says WE'RE the dumb ones.

Yeah, I guess because I support the War on Terror - a war to eradicate barbarians who want to eradicate me, I'm dumb. Also, I ought to be put on an island and killed.

Thank you for taking the time to read my post and understand it as opposed to calling it “blah” a la Kim.

I’ll address your second point first:

I understand the point you are trying to make in “NAZIs is just a genre of crime”. I would not say that. NAZIs were a government in a country that was criminal. All of the German people backed that government thus all of the German people in 1941 were an enemy of the US. Germany was indeed a menace to the world in 1939.

There is no way anyone you can make a similar argument in Iraq. 1)Germany invaded Poland and we let them continue invading other countries. Iraq invaded Kuwait and we crushed them…Iraq’s “invading days” were over, 2)Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with attacks on our country, 3)The people of Iraq were not and are not our enemies.

Your first point has to do with the Patriot act. If you were to read the Patriot act you would see that it more to do with giving the government easier ways to gather information than it does with protecting the “entrance doors” to the US. Regardless, imagine where we would be if we used that $300 billion for more explosive detection devices in airports and ports, more facial recognition devices at customs, more barbed wire and protection around our nuclear and chemical plants today, better electronic communication between the INS, FBI and CIA. We have not spent one dime on protecting our nuclear and chemical plants and that is criminal.

Dang Kim. The "Love Boat" (the Ilk Boat) theme is now playing a continuous loop in my head. That's what I get when I'm trying to be funny. And now I've shared that little thought with the rest of you so that you might be similarly plagued. Cruel of me, I know. Blame it on my ilkiness.

Dang Kim. The "Love Boat" (the Ilk Boat) theme is now playing a continuous loop in my head. That's what I get when I'm trying to be funny. And now I've shared that little thought with the rest of you so that you might be similarly plagued. Cruel of me, I know. Blame it on my ilkiness.

So much dirt has been kicked around people have forgotten why we invaded Iraq the second time. Saddam's scientists told him chemical and biological weapons were in the nation's inventory. To tell him otherwise would have meant death is a very slow and unpleasant way. Saddam told his generals, "We have WMDs." But he wanted nuclear WMDs, and the corruption at the UN was providing him with the wherewithal if he could just find the right connection. Western intelligence agencies, having no better way to confirm the claim than Saddam's generals, had no other choice but to believe Iraq had WMDs. So they were invaded before he could use the chem/bio WMDs, let alone get a nuke from North Korea or Pakistan. Could everybody keep that straight from here on out? Joe Jackson up there sounds like an asshole.

Of course, it's Christopher Wolf, who is Joe and Valerie's lawyer. And in that role, he's "simply helping them understand some of the technicalities of the criminal investigation and collecting facts for any eventual civil suit."

“My entire point was that you embellished your facts with conclusions (either by yourself or others) that that facts we now know (or think we know) don't really support, regardless of the legal implications.”

Than I misunderstood you – because I did not “embellish” the facts.

Someone in the administration revealed the identity of a covert CIA spy/operative/agent/NOC/desk jockey to six reporters for “revenge” and may have violated the law by doing so;
- it is not my opinion that a witness with apparent knowledge of the facts reported that the identity of Wilson’s wife was revealed for “revenge” – it is a fact.

Karl Rove revealed or “confirmed” the identity of a covert CIA spy/operative/agent/NOC/desk jockey to Matt Cooper (and probably Robert Novak) and may have violated the law by doing so
- it is not my opinion that Karl Rove revealed to Matt Cooper that “Wilson’s wife” was with the CIA – it is a fact.

The identity was revealed in the context of a political “push back”, and therefore national security information was put at risk for, at best, purely political reasons, and at worst, for revenge on Joe Wilson
- it is not my opinion that Novak said “I didn’t dig it out … they thought it was important” – it is a fact.

The Iraq War was politically sold fundamentally on a WMD rational and the subsequent evidence shows there was only a miniscule threat, if any threat, of any sort of reconstituted Iraqi “WMD program related activity.”
- it is not my opinion that Kay and Deulfer found scant evidence of any significant Iraqi WMD capability – it is a fact. It is not my opinion that Senator Roberts has decided not to report on the “match” between the statements of the administration with respect to the threat of Iraqi WMDs and the facts about Iraq’s actual capabilities – it is a fact.

The evidence on the record of Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Niger is very thin, and the evidence on the record of attempts in the rest of Africa is even thinner
It is not my opinion that the White House itself, in numerous statements, backed off the 16 words – it is a fact. It is not my opinion that the Congo was mentioned only two times in the Butler Report – it is a fact.

Awww Joe. That's good. At least my humor has accomplished one thing: you no longer want to exterminate me but, instead, want to send me on a cruise. I wish all our diplomatic efforts could be so easy. (grin)

"...you no longer want to exterminate me but, instead, want to send me on a cruise."

Yeah, well, Leslie, don't think that I'm doing you any favors. The last time I went on a cruise, I, like, gained 10 pounds. Too much "bar" hopping (seafood bar, chocolate bar, cheese bar...) So, TAKE THAT!!!

TM The press has a problem with this case because the Fitzgerald group has been extremely tight-lipped about their investigation. It reminds me of "Treasure Island." Nobody, press or administration, knows who is going to get the Black Spot. Sometimes (and this is the cynic in me) I think they throw out this stuff, like today's story, hoping that someone else in the press or in the administration will respond so that they will be able glean more information. The press itself is on a fishing expedition. Let's throw some bait out there and see what we get.

To defend myself and correct some untruths...Seven says that I believe:

1. in the genocide of conservatives.
FALSE: I just believe we'd be a lot safer without conservatives.

2. that "in little over a year, the Republicans will be in the minority in both the House and Senate."
TRUE

3. that "at least one Republican in the Senate or House" will turn on the president because of this non-scandal.
TRUE/FALSE: True to the 1st part, false to the part that this is a non-scandal.

4. that "Rovegate is about killing Americans to guarantee Bush got a second term."
TRUE, in part. Rove's singular goal was to have Bush re-elected. He knew a "war president" would be hard to defeat.

5. that Republicans are akin to a "smelly ugly scorch mark."
HYPERBOLE: Guilty as charged.

6. that "15 years from now, when someone is on the voting fence," they'll vote Democratic because of this non-scandal.
EDUCATED GUESS BASED ON IMPACT OF WATERGATE.

7. that "this administration used 9/11 for their own personal, political and financial gain."
TRUE TO THE 100th DEGREE.

8. that "our 'Christian' [Joe's quotes] leader is evil."
I am a Christian but not a "fanatic". I believe example speaks louder than words. Anybody who know's anything about Jesus (Christians or otherwise) know that Jesus would never agree with Bush's "bring it on" philosophy of basic human-interaction let alone presidency.

9. that "terrorism is just a genre of crime."
TRUE. Saying "we will kill the last terrorist" is as moronic as saying "we will rid the world of the last criminal"

10. that "Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with attacks on our country."
TRUE

11, that "we have not spent one dime on protecting our nuclear and chemical plants."
HYPERBOLE: We've spent less than 1% of the amount we spent on Iraq war on making our nuclear and chemical plants safer.

I have maintained and still maintain that the fundamental disagreement between Right and Left over post-September 11th foreign and security policies is that the Right believes we're at war with Islamic fundamentalists, while the Left believes we're in a massive criminal investigation and enforcement operation. Pretty much all disputes derive from this disagreement.

Armin, your premise has absolutely nothing to do with your conclusion.

I believe we are "at war" with drug lords in America. But my conclusion is not that we should then bomb the crap out of Florida because there may be a thousand or so drug lords based in Florida. Not only is it immoral, its costly and inefficient.

Just because we are "at war" with Islamic Fundamentalists doesn't mean that we have the right to invade every country in the world that happens to house some Islamic Fundamentalists. Even if for some insane reason that were an acceptable approach it would be the most inefficient means of catching or killing the culprits. Furthermore, as can be seen clearly today, such an approach is the MOST efficient way to create new terrorists.

Its just arithmetic----

Say the US kills one innocent Iraqi by mistake. Say that the innocent Iraqi has about 100 people who know/love him or her. Then, say that 5% of those that knew the Iraqi are so mad that they enlist in Al Qaeda. Well, that’s 5 new terrorists. If we kill 100,000 Iraqis by accident, that makes about 500,000 new terrorists.

Alls it takes is a little common sense and the ability to add, subtract, multiply and divide to foresee what the future holds.

Sure you did. You took a factual statement and added a conclusion that somebody (either you or somebody else - it's hard to tell what the quotation marks mean in the context of your comment) created from that fact.

actually i thought michael jackon's dad had some good points. i'm way past voter registration age and its about time i should register. i think dr. jj has convinced me to register democratic. no hard feelings.

Fitzgerald isn't anyone to mess with. If someone is in the wrong they will go down. He is a Republican with very strong integrity. Many of the Republicans like Rove are first and foremost politicians. Integrity gets in the way of success in politics. That's why special prosecutors always cause problems even when appointed from the same party.

I posted earlier that this story isn't dying, yet I was assured it actually was. Well dang, I guess my eyes and ears deceive me. Where do all these interesting new stories keep coming from? There isn't any Woodward and Bernstein in these days of a timid press. Hmmm...could it be the prosecutor's office? Hmmmm...

The public knew when they reelected G.W. Bush that a CIA agent's identity had become public. Obviously the 51% of the voters who supported the President didn't care enough to throw him out of office. The majority rules. This is all a big waste of time.

MIKE: "When Joe Wilson wrote his rebuttall in the Times, he was questioning info that stands to this day"

I guess I can add you to the long list of people who have failed to demonstrate where Bush got "recently" and "significant quantities."

"Cooper's piece completely misrepresented the conversation by stating that the White House was tryng to smear Wilson. Where did that come from."

A number of places, including here: "Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge." (Alternate link.)

KIM: "A,C,D and E simply false"

You can be counted on to make sweeping pronouncements without backing them up with a shred of proof.

"Cooper's testimony establishes that Rove did not initiate the contact."

None of the relevant laws or non-disclosure agreements have any language like this: "unauthorized disclosure of classified information is perfectly fine if it so happens that it was the other guy who put the dime in the phone."

"Why, for instance, are not reporters eagerly interviewing the Wilsons?"

Wilson has not been quiet. Plame has, probably because she still works for the CIA and has certain rules to follow.

TRUZ: "This and your other so-called 'facts' are not facts at all. They are conclusions drawn from information uncovered by the investigation"

I don't think the following is "information uncovered by the investigation;" I think it's just stuff reporters figured out: "two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife" (here or here).

SEVEN: "If Karl Rove is so psychopathically cunning and conniving and running the country and all, how could he POSSIBLY have done anything as stupid as has been claimed by the Left?"

Nobody's perfect. Eventually hubris caught up. Rove never dreamed that one day a prosecutor would come along who would be tough enough to crack open people like Cooper. (And I have a feeling Fitz cracked open Rove's pal Novak a long time ago.)

"Where are these profits you speak of?"

It would be nice to know, but Bush doesn't seem that interested in helping us find out. A lot of it has disappeared in the forms of hundreds of tons of cash (billions of dollars) that we can't account for (link, pdf), carried away in duffel bags and pickup trucks.

"What should we do now?"

Insisting on honesty from our leaders would be a good start.

"We are doing what you suggest on the homefront"

I guess that's why we have scores of chemical plants that are not secure (just to pick one example). Those hundreds of tons of missing cash could have gone a long way to solving this problem.

"the PATRIOT ACT"

Let me know how many convictions of real terrorists have occurred on account of the Patriot Act.

"http://www.husseinandterror.com/"

Nice job demonstrating that Saddam was merely following in the footsteps of these friends of ours, who run circles around Saddam, as far as close connections with terrorism are concerned, not to mention various other unsavory activities.

ARMIN: "now the left loves the CIA"

The only thing more remarkable than the spectacle of the left loving the CIA is the concurrent spectacle of the right hating the CIA.

Davis wrote: "The public knew when they reelected G.W. Bush that a CIA agent's identity had become public."

Almost half of America thinks (wrongly) that Saddam was behind 911 and that was/is and issue covered like crazy. Not too many people had ever heard of the Plame matter until the last 10 days or so. So, no, this was not a well-known issue back when the election was held. It is still not really THAT big of a story for the general public today. So you are wrong. (Although it's nice you refered to her as an "agent" and not a "mere secretary.")

Of course, Davis has his own partisan blinders on. Even though Plame was working on WMD issues, Davis thinks she was doing nothing in the war on terror.

Novak should not have written his column without checking Plame's identity, and he has changed his story about his discussions with the CIA before publishing the article. Shame on him.

One or two administration officials discussed with Novak and Cooper the fact that Wilson's wife was CIA. Shame on whoever those officials were. They didn't need to do that to correct the wrong information Wilson was putting out.

But none of this rises to the level of a crime. Not even a firing offense.

Jim E.: CIA "agents" give information to CIA "officers." Plame is an officer. The CIA people make a mighty Big Deal of this, and I want you to be able to get it right when you see them on the cocktail circuit.

"A lot of it has disappeared in the forms of hundreds of tons of cash (billions of dollars) that we can't account for..., carried away in duffel bags and pickup trucks."

Juke, I do think you are a loon but you normally do a decent job of covering it up with a veneer of sounding reasonable. Here, you are slipping. Like Karl Rove, no doubt, your hubris has caught up to you.

JBG: You are just dragging your refusal to see evidence from one thread to another. Pigsty and others settled the 'recent' and 'significant' problem for you. A,C,D, and E have not been shown to be true or facts. No one has shown the motive for the outing was revenge, and you have precious little in the way of people who will put themselves on record saying that. Who initiates phone calls is pertinent to intent, which prosecutors pay attention to. Your confusion persists. Go back and settle on other threads before you bring the same tired, unsupported arguments forward.
================================================

He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

TM then asks:

However, I have read on other ocassions that, when the hit squad is not available, the CIA settles for a phone call to the publisher to squelch publication. Why that did not happen here remains a puzzle.

2) He can warn Novak off in the strongest possible, within-the-law terminology...but the act of contacting the publisher would be tantamount to confirming Novak's identification of Plame to a third party.

3) Novak already has information, so contact with him can be a bit less controlled: "Your story is wrong, and if you insist on writing about it anyway, leave Plame's name out of it"...

4) Contacting the publisher and saying "Do not publish Novak's story about Valerie Plame" would be an admission that the story contains classified (in fact, "S, NF" is the appropriate term as far as we know from the Air Force One memo story) information.

You seem to think I made this up: "A lot of it has disappeared in the forms of hundreds of tons of cash (billions of dollars) that we can't account for..., carried away in duffel bags and pickup trucks."

Is it common for Grand Juries to convene to investigate crimes, such as revealing identity of a covert CIA officer, if that crime can not possibly have happened, as would be the case if Plame was not covert?

I don't get it. The CIA says she was covert and requests inquiry. The Special Prosecutor looks at the facts and concludes she was covert, therefore revealing her identity could be a crime covered by quite a few statutes, thereby enabling him to convene a grand jury. Yet right wing apologists say, quite simply, "Ergo, she was not covert" and consider that the end of the argument. When did the judgment of Internet partisans come to supercede that of the CIA and government prosecutors?

For that matter, what happened to Republicans being the law and order party, the national security party? This discussion completely ignores the other serious charges that may be handed down - conspiracy, obstruction, perjury. It is quite a spectacle to see just how partisan the Republicans really are now, where they put Party (and especially the High Priest of their "permanent majority") above country. And it is true high comedy to watch the "moral values" people turn such a blind eye to the pure amorality of this behavior on the part of the administration.

The tides are shifting. Hubris is exacting its due justice. And the American people, as lazy and ignorant as they strive to be, eventually will sit up and take notice. They always do.